He didn't even need to die, God was omnipotent so he could have just forgiven everyone but he preferred to send his son on a suicide mission in which he would be tortured and killed. If he couldn't forgive someone without killing an innocent person then I am more powerful then God

Next time you judge someone by their own standards, make sure you actually read their text. The Bible states that the wages of sin are death. Forgiving it would be the same as tolerating it, and unlike Americans, God doesn't have to bend to please people. In order to justify the lives of everyone who had ever sinned, someone had to die.

The fact that it is specifically Gods rules that he must kill an innocent person if he is to forgive them and not humans rules makes God far worse, not better. He wants to watch innocent people die, it is his rules which he set up.

If you actually read the Bible, you'll learn that the last thing he wants is for anyone to die. But it's the nature of good to destroy evil. If he wanted to kill innocent people, he wouldn't have created them in the first place, or he would've killed off everyone by now.

As I said in my previous comment I have read the bible
"the last thing he wants is for innocent people to die"
Well then why the **** did he go out of his way to create an elaborate plot in which his innocent son dies when he could have avoided the whole thing by just forgiving everyone? you're talking ****

well then your God still tolerated sin by his "murder my son and use him as a scape goat" plot, the only difference is he tortured an innocent person. Your God now forgives sin now his plot is complete so he tolerates evil by your own logic. Seeing as you keep telling me that I haven't read the bible I find it ridiculous that you accuse me of not reading your comments.

It's not murder, not by any standard. Jesus volunteered to take humanity's place by accepting the responsibility for every sin committed. You may have read the Bible, yes, but reading and understanding are different things.

I suppose it isn't technically murder, but what I'm trying to show you is that God was fully able to avoid his innocent son dying, he could have done it in a second, however instead he chose an elaborate plot in which his son would get tortured to death, he fully knew all the pain and misery that Jesus would go through and he could have avoided it and just forgiven everyone, but he chose to kill Jesus instead, for the lols.

I have read the bible. Nobody had to die, God was omnipotent he could have simply forgiven people, how are you not getting this? God said that the wages of sin are death because that's how he wants it and how he set up the rules, he could change the rules at any moment like he did the Old Testament rules, instead he chose to kill his son which sets up an un just situation anyway.
Lets say there is a criminal and the judge says to him in court
"It's ok I'll forgive you, but I want to forgive you after killing my child, then you must pretend to drink his blood and eat his flesh and then you are forgiven." The judge certainly is not moral because he killed his son and the criminal is not moral because he used a scapegoat to benefit himself and it is not justice at all, the criminal got away with murder (maybe literally) without any form of punishment.

He was also omnipotent enough to make humankind less feeble and less of sinners. He could've rid the world of sin in the first place. While I agree that forgiveness is equally as foolish, sacrificial death is no better. Killing one man does not help at all. He's just letting the world bathe in the evils of his own creation.

We're not judging by your standards here- we're just using human morals.

Furthermore, the bible is ****** with morals. If an omnipotent creates sinful humans and an evil world, and can only think of death as the wage of sin and eternal hellfire as punishment for their nature of his own making, then that is one very ****** god.

The only way other than killing the sinner to be rid of their sins is to take away their free will. People are sinners by default, and to take away their choice to do what they want is defeating the purpose of their existence. Letting one man die for the good of all humanity did help, since now no one has to die just because they were born.

That's just it, though: in case you haven't noticed, human morals are flawed. Very flawed, if you've ever picked up a newspaper. There are thousands of different cultures, and every person has their own set of morals. Just because you think one thing is right doesn't mean the next person does.

God himself didn't create sinful people, contrary to whatever you came up with. If you ever actually read the Creation story, Adam and Eve caused the human race to become sinners when they listened to Satan. That's part of why he's the bad guy.

He would be a terrible God if he punished people for being the way he made them, yes, but people have a choice to be evil. Justifying someone's actions by saying that it's in their nature is a crutch. I wouldn't think to reward someone who saved my life the same as a person who robbed from me. Why should the latter end up the same place as the former?

We are not saying that forgiveness or the aim is bad, I'm saying it's ridiculous and immoral to kill an innocent person to use as a scapegoat for the crimes of another person, nobody had to die, God is omnipotent, he chose to kill his son.
There are several disorders such as autism which make it far more likely for someone to be an atheist, it has even been suggested that atheism is a form of autism. Also it depends pretty much entirely on which culture/family you are bought up in as to what faith you are so you don't really have a choice, especially if you are indoctrinated before you have the mental capabilities to distinguish fact from fiction, then you are literally unable to make a choice because you have insufficient reasoning capabilities.
The criminal in the analogy would have been rewarded with eternal bliss.